Zoo are you born or are you made?

[amorousdog5]

I don't believe there was ever a time when the taboo did not exist... simply a time when it was not as powerful. It is human nature to fear and then hate that which is different. Zoosexuals are by far a minority, and so they would always have been regarded as strange and persecuted for being different.

 

[K_9River_rat]

I don't believe there was ever a time when the taboo did not exist... simply a time when it was not as powerful. It is human nature to fear and then hate that which is different. Zoosexuals are by far a minority, and so they would always have been regarded as strange and persecuted for being different.

I'm thinking it was a norm if you go back far enough.

I'm sure that the rabies outbreak about 4,000 years ago led to a lot of the taboo.

I need to do more digging to substantite that however.

 

[amorousdog5]

I'm thinking it was a norm if you go back far enough.

I'm sure that the rabies outbreak about 4,000 years ago led to a lot of the taboo.

I need to do more digging to substantite that however.

Yes, and I'll need to see that evidence before I give any credit to this idea. Sufficed to say I doubt it's a coincidence that in recorded history, the vast majority of cultures have deemed it unacceptable. Humans are humans, and will behave as such.

 

[K_9River_rat]

Yes, and I'll need to see that evidence before I give any credit to this idea. Sufficed to say I doubt it's a coincidence that in recorded history, the vast majority of cultures have deemed it unacceptable. Humans are humans, and will behave as such.

And I doubt we will ever find more that suggestive type stuff.

My next delve will be into various religious texts as well as any others and trying to date them and compare to dates of in particular, the rabies outbreaks, but also other disease outbreaks that are transmitted by animals.

 

[Predlov]

I'd like to hear more of that history.

Is any written down?

If anything survived the Middle Ages, it is likely in possession of the Vatican Archives. Everything else was likely destroyed among the thousands of other written works that was targeted by the organization during that time. To everyone else that is naïve to this happening in the past, this sounds convenient. To my family, it was many things but convenient. Please return this thread back to the topic subject.

 

[K_9River_rat]

If anything survived the Middle Ages, it is likely in possession of the Vatican Archives. Everything else was likely destroyed among the thousands of other written works that was targeted by the organization during that time. To everyone else that is naïve to this happening in the past, this sounds convenient. To my family, it was many things but convenient. Please return this thread back to the topic subject.

I think what you have to say is on topic.

Some may not believe you as you say, but that shouldn't prevent you from sharing what you can of what sounds to me to be a fascinating story, that does have some importance on the topic at hand.

Unfortunately, a lot of the information we would love to have was either not written down or recorded in any way, or if it was, it is lost to time.

This will leave us with a lot of speculation, however for the longest time, history was handed down by word of mouth.

Just because we try to go with recorded history in modern times does not mean that we should push aside the tales passed down through generations of family.

At the very least, I believe those stories handed down should at least have a place at the table and are worthy of consideration and let the reader make up their own minds.

And of note here too. Just because something WAS recorded, does not necessarily mean it is true.

I could write a story now that is complete fiction, but write it as truth, and perhaps someone reading it 3000 years from now, should it survive that long may take it as truth..

 

[AngryGoose]

Idk... I was extremely turned on the first time I saw it and I've always been an animal lover so I guess born that way

 

[K_9River_rat]

I found this while doing some digging. Again supporting the knowledge of rabies as far back as about 4,000 years ago.

I'll have to go back and look for the link, but it appears the first mention of bestiality in the Bible was in the book of Leviticus, which while actually written sometime later, the story it tells appears to be around 3,323 years ago, so AFTER the outbreak of rabies and the association of rabies and dogs.

So while it doesn't show that rabies was the reason for the writings in Leviticus, it does show, if dates are correct, that it COULD have been the reasoning behind it as the knowledge of rabies predates the book.

Four Thousand Years of Concepts Relating to Rabies in Animals and Humans, Its Prevention and Its Cure

The epitome of the One Health paradigm—and of its shortcomings—rabies has been known to humankind for at least 4000 years. We review the evolution through history of concepts leading to our current understanding of rabies in dogs and humans ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[amorousdog5]

And of note here too. Just because something WAS recorded, does not necessarily mean it is true.

I could write a story now that is complete fiction, but write it as truth, and perhaps someone reading it 3000 years from now, should it survive that long may take it as truth..

Very true. This is why modern historians typically look for something to be supported by multiple sources before claiming it as credible.

 

[K_9River_rat]

Very true. This is why modern historians typically look for something to be supported by multiple sources before claiming it as credible.

This is why my end goal in this is to bring as many sources to the table as I can.

 

[K_9River_rat]

Just an update. Sorry these are slow in coming because I'm doing this at work on my phone in between job tasks.

10 more days and I'll be back home and able to devote more time.

But, what I have found so far, and some of this will be repeats of things I've already posted, is:

There are ancient cave paintings depicting humans and animals engaged in sexual acts.

There are also ancient Greek references to bestiality.

I believe I came across ancient Egyptian references as well, but will double check.

There was an outbreak of rabies about 4,000 years ago give or take.

Literally every single thing I can find that forbids or casts shadow on bestiality falls AFTER this rabies outbreak. This includes biblical references of course, Hittite law, cannons, and others.

I want to research other possible diseases that can be transmitted by animals and look at them in a historical light as well.

While all of this does not prove anything, we need to keep in mind that we almost certainly will not be able to absolutely prove anything using historical records since they likely simply do not exist because nobody felt the need to record them, and/or they have been destroyed or otherwise lost to time.

What I can gather at this point, is that bestiality certainly was enough of a thing in ancient times to be worth depicting in cave paintings and other more recent albeit still ancient artwork.

Several ancient authors have written about it too, although I have yet to delve deeper into that but certainly will.

While we will never know just how widespread bestiality was in ancient times, I think it is logical to believe that it was not taboo until sometime between 3000 and 3400 years ago, and maybe even more recent than that as it appears the story in the book of Leviticus takes place roughly 3300 years ago, the book itself was written later.

The ancient artwork certainly suggests that it wasn't taboo at all, even depicting the gods having sex with animals.

Also some Pagan stuff would seem to include it, but again, I have yet to really look that deeply into it.

All that being said, I do not think it would be a stretch to say that some groups may have worshipped it. Perhaps believing it to be something that brings one closer to nature or God, which I can understand, because I actually get a sense of that myself, and would like to head if anyone else feels that way.

It would certainly appear that the texts forbidding or frowning upon bestiality are certainly the root cause of the modern taboo, and those can likely be attributed to rabies and possibly other diseases.

There are many other examples of things being forbidden in these and other texts that can likely be traced to something similar. Like as mentioned earlier, not eating pork or other foods, because back in those times, parasites were not understood and as such, anything that if eaten that could cause death, was seen as unclean.

As of now, I think it is justified to believe that bestiality was quite a common practice. If it wasn't and only happened here and there, why would anyone have felt the need to forbid it as unclean? Especially in multiple texts.

Also if it wasn't common, why do we find art and literature depicting it?

Why would they do such things if it was frowned upon or something that existed in shadows? On the contrary, it appears that they revered it on some level.

In my digging I read an article that read something along the lines of "bestiality probably wasn't that common....", yet didn't provide any sources to support that statement, while being sure to include sources for nearly everything else in the article.

While I know that none of this can be considered in any way to be conclusive, in looking at the evidence that IS available, I think it certainly suggests that it was certainly more prevalent and accepted, rather than the other way around, as there is literally NOTHING I can find against it older than about 3300 years ago.

Of course this may change as I did deeper, but I'm thinking this is another case of skewing history to make ourselves feel better about the shit we did in the past.

But this isn't like slavery, which is so obviously evil that you don't need a book to tell you it's wrong to know it's wrong. Sure, maybe I'm biased, but when it comes to zoo, no matter how hard I try to find some real concrete evidence that it is fundamentally wrong, I continually come up empty handed being left with the "because society or the Bible says it's wrong". And my last comment on that is that there are things in the Bible and other texts that we CAN find or know WHY they are wrong. Killing is a perfect example. We also know there's a real reason for "spare the rod, spoil the child".

In other words, when you dig though it, there's a reason for nearly all of it. The only reason I can seem to find for bestiality is disease, and most likely that being rabies. And that's purely logical and fits very well with other things that are mentioned.

 

[Martian]

I'd say made. I can buy into homosexuality being influenced by genes or hormones but I doubt there is a gene that makes you attracted to dogs or horses. That doesn't mean being zoo is a conscious choice of course.

 

[K_9River_rat]

I'd say made. I can buy into homosexuality being influenced by genes or hormones but I doubt there is a gene that makes you attracted to dogs or horses. That doesn't mean being zoo is a conscious choice of course.

140,000 years of evolution is a long time.

 

[K_9River_rat]

I'd like to thank you @K_9River_rat for this wonderful contribution. Your efforts in this are right in-line with what I've always thought must be true.

Please feel free to share any of your sources with us as time permits.

Keep up the good work ?

No worries!

This is turning into a huge undertaking, but one that I hope will ultimately help us better understand ourselves, as well as potentially helping others to understand us.

 

[amorousdog5]

There was an outbreak of rabies about 4,000 years ago give or take.

The one source you linked so far makes no mention of a rabies "outbreak" 4000 years ago, it simply asserts that humans must have known about rabies for at least that long because it is mentioned in an ancient Mesopotamian code of law. Please link a source that identifies this supposed outbreak.

I want to research other possible diseases that can be transmitted by animals and look at them in a historical light as well.

It seems unlikely that any diseases would have caused a negative reaction towards bestiality because there are so few that can jump the species gap when compared to the vast array of diseases that humans can get from one another.

The ancient artwork certainly suggests that it wasn't taboo at all, even depicting the gods having sex with animals.

You can go online right now and find plenty of drawn bestiality on sites like e621 from artists of cultures around the world. And yet, how many of those cultures regard bestiality in anything other than a negative light? Most of them have even made it illegal. Simply finding bestiality art from long ago means nothing in terms of how well actual bestiality was accepted.

It would certainly appear that the texts forbidding or frowning upon bestiality are certainly the root cause of the modern taboo, and those can likely be attributed to rabies and possibly other diseases.

Another explanation is that the taboo already existed at the time those texts were written, because humans are humans and hate/fear those who are different. The texts would therefore be the natural result of the prevailing attitudes at the time.

As of now, I think it is justified to believe that bestiality was quite a common practice.

You have literally no evidence that supports this claim.

as there is literally NOTHING I can find against it older than about 3300 years ago.

Being that the earliest recorded history we have started only 5000 years ago, this is hardly an interesting fact. There are no doubt many other things for which we have no information from that time period. Why don't you instead point to a single piece of historical evidence that actually supports the idea that bestiality was more common, rather than trying to imply the lack of evidence against it is in any way significant?

 

[K_9River_rat]

The one source you linked so far makes no mention of a rabies "outbreak" 4000 years ago, it simply asserts that humans must have known about rabies for at least that long because it is mentioned in an ancient Mesopotamian code of law. Please link a source that identifies this supposed outbreak.

It seems unlikely that any diseases would have caused a negative reaction towards bestiality because there are so few that can jump the species gap when compared to the vast array of diseases that humans can get from one another.

You can go online right now and find plenty of drawn bestiality on sites like e621 from artists of cultures around the world. And yet, how many of those cultures regard bestiality in anything other than a negative light? Most of them have even made it illegal. Simply finding bestiality art from long ago means nothing in terms of how well actual bestiality was accepted.

Another explanation is that the taboo already existed at the time those texts were written, because humans are humans and hate/fear those who are different. The texts would therefore be the natural result of the prevailing attitudes at the time.

You have literally no evidence that supports this claim.

Being that the earliest recorded history we have started only 5000 years ago, this is hardly an interesting fact. There are no doubt many other things for which we have no information from that time period. Why don't you instead point to a single piece of historical evidence that actually supports the idea that bestiality was more common, rather than trying to imply the lack of evidence against it is in any way significant?

Wish I was on my laptop to make this reply easier so I could reference your post point by point. So please forgive me if I jump around a bit, or miss points altogether.

As for the rabies outbreak about 4,000 years ago, scroll up to one of my earlier posts and you'll find a source there. Note that I only posted one source, but through digging I actually found multiple that agreed, and none that opposed.

One question that entered my mind is why even make a law about it? You don't go and make laws about something that nobody is doing for one, or about something that is so uncommon as to not be bothering anyone.

For the law to even come into existence in the first place, it had to have been common enough.

Secondly, there had to have been a reason for the law, as in why, besides the fact that it exists, make the law in the first place. As in what did they see bad about this? Sure it could have been other things besides rabies or some other disease, like maybe some abusive husband of some influence got pissed when his wife would rather fuck the dog.

We'll probably never know.

No offense here, but I did clearly state that this my merely my own opinions, and provided plenty of room to be wrong.

But the fact is we do not, and more than likely will not ever have the evidence in hand to definitively prove any of this one way or the other.

That being said, for anyone to say that it wasn't common has really nothing to stand on.

The mere existence of the law certainly suggests that it was at the very least common enough to draft a law about it. Furthermore, these laws appearing independently would suggest that this wasn't something occurring in just one place or time.

Thanks for your questions, but again, keep in mind that I am in no way saying "this is it". I would be an idiot to do so.

 

[K_9River_rat]

Really quickly, I'd like to add that I am not trying to fabricate a truth that suits what I want it to be.

Rather, I'm trying to figure out what possibilities exist that could fit with what we know and see.

Nobody will ever be able to nail down a percentage of any ancient population that was active in bestiality.

But as stated earlier, if it wasn't something that wasn't being done enough for people to even know about it, then there would be no reason to even have a thought about drafting a law about it.

This is one thing that I've never seen mentioned anywhere.

We don't have a law against doing aspirin as a recreational drug because nobody is doing that.

In fact, no law has been made about a recreational drug until enough of a population was doing it for it to even be a problem enough to even create a law about it in the first place.

In other words, you don't make a law before the act that you're making the law about. That isn't the way that works.

And we don't go making laws about things until someone and usually many start having an issue with it.

I used rabies because out of anything, disease wise, it was the only thing I have found so far in any ancient laws, and it was mentioned that should one have a rabid dog that went and bit someone causing their death, it detailed the fine. It also had a separate fine should the one bitten be a slave.

Sure. Not definitive. But so far the only connection as well..

 

[amorousdog5]

As for the rabies outbreak about 4,000 years ago, scroll up to one of my earlier posts and you'll find a source there. Note that I only posted one source, but through digging I actually found multiple that agreed, and none that opposed.

The one source you linked so far makes no mention of a rabies "outbreak" 4000 years ago, it simply asserts that humans must have known about rabies for at least that long because it is mentioned in an ancient Mesopotamian code of law. Please link a source that identifies this supposed outbreak.

One question that entered my mind is why even make a law about it? You don't go and make laws about something that nobody is doing for one, or about something that is so uncommon as to not be bothering anyone.

Took me a moment to realize you had jumped back to talking about bestiality here rather than rabies. For there to be a law against it, all that needs to be true is that SOME people are doing it, and whomever is in charge doesn't like it. Therefore this is by no means evidence that it was more common back then. As for why, for the same reason you make a law against homosexuality or decide to enslave jews or africans. Those who are different are hated.

No offense here, but I did clearly state that this my merely my own opinions, and provided plenty of room to be wrong.

I did not in fact say you are wrong. I said you have no evidence to support your claims.

That being said, for anyone to say that it wasn't common has really nothing to stand on.

In the absence of any proof for the actual numbers back then, we must rely on the evidence we do have. In all of known history where such things have been recorded, zoosexuals have been estimated to be only a very small percentage of the population. Based on this, I would say it is more likely the situation was the same back then than not. It's not much to go on, for we can have no proof of what really happened back then, but it is certainly a more solid foundation than speculation that an outbreak that doesn't seem to have actually happened (unless you can quote me the words that support this claim) made everyone afraid to fuck dogs.

 

[K_9River_rat]

Took me a moment to realize you had jumped back to talking about bestiality here rather than rabies. For there to be a law against it, all that needs to be true is that SOME people are doing it, and whomever is in charge doesn't like it. Therefore this is by no means evidence that it was more common back then. As for why, for the same reason you make a law against homosexuality or decide to enslave jews or africans. Those who are different are hated.


I did not in fact say you are wrong. I said you have no evidence to support your claims.


In the absence of any proof for the actual numbers back then, we must rely on the evidence we do have. In all of known history where such things have been recorded, zoosexuals have been estimated to be only a very small percentage of the population. Based on this, I would say it is more likely the situation was the same back then than not. It's not much to go on, for we can have no proof of what really happened back then, but it is certainly a more solid foundation than speculation that an outbreak that doesn't seem to have actually happened (unless you can quote me the words that support this claim) made everyone afraid to fuck dogs.

The evidence that we have supports that it was a thing. It DID exist.

What we do not know, is to what degree, but obviously enough so that it caught enough people's attention to draft multiple laws, in multiple societies, in multiple places, in roughly the same time period.

That really is my only point on what we DO know.

I realize this leaves questions, and there will always be questions that will likely never be answered accurately.

They didn't have the internet and all of that back then. Things were spread by word of mouth, and likely did not as "viral", or near as quickly as things do now.

Several someone's thought enough about it to draft laws. We can speculate all day as to why.

I do personally believe that it was more common. But that's just a belief, and honestly while sure, you make some possible points, so do I.

The evidence to support it being the same or less common just holds less water to me.

 

[Jmmp2803]

The fetish can be made, but the actual attraction to dogs you either have it or you don’t

 

[amorousdog5]

The evidence that we have supports that it was a thing. It DID exist.

That's true. However I have not been arguing against this point, and you have been arguing something a bit different:

As of now, I think it is justified to believe that bestiality was quite a common practice.

This is the claim I have a problem with. With everything you have researched, you've found not a single piece of evidence that supports the idea it was common or even more common. Therefore I just want to make this fact abundantly clear to people, and to point out that you have nothing more than what you began with: Baseless Speculation.

Several someone's thought enough about it to draft laws. We can speculate all day as to why.

Hmmm... but my speculation actually explains this phenomenon while yours tries unsuccessfully to use it as an explanation for your own theories.

One thing that is absolutely true, I can't say for a fact that it was about the same back then either. No person has any proof because it no longer exists. The best thing we can say therefore is, "I don't know."

 

[Edenraed]

From my point of view, zoos are born, but we discover that we are zoos later in life, just like being gay or any other sexual orientation

 

[K_9River_rat]

That's true. However I have not been arguing against this point, and you have been arguing something a bit different:

This is the claim I have a problem with. With everything you have researched, you've found not a single piece of evidence that supports the idea it was common or even more common. Therefore I just want to make this fact abundantly clear to people, and to point out that you have nothing more than what you began with: Baseless Speculation.


Hmmm... but my speculation actually explains this phenomenon while yours tries unsuccessfully to use it as an explanation for your own theories.

One thing that is absolutely true, I can't say for a fact that it was about the same back then either. No person has any proof because it no longer exists. The best thing we can say therefore is, "I don't know."

Absolutely, we should not be afraid of the words, "I don't know.", simply because we really don't.

I would certainly call this speculation, because that's exactly what it is, however I wouldn't call it "baseless".

There is a truth somewhere that we will never know. All we have to go by are very few and far between facts.

Part of what makes me think is was to some degree, more common if we go back far enough, is the taboo aspect simply had to start somewhere.

Prior to that point in time, obviously no taboo.

It is very difficult to predict or know just how much effect that taboo has on people. Not only that, but how that effect has changed over time.

In modern times, I believe most of the impact of that taboo comes in the form of public shaming, and legal ramifications.

I question how much effect the public shaming had years ago, especially amongst smaller groups of people. While on one hand, I could see where the effects could be greater in a small population that really believes that taboo, I would think the effects would be quite different in a small group that did not go along with the taboo.

When looking at ancient civilizations, such as China, Greece, Rome, and others, homosexuality was quite prevalent, and also no taboo.

While obviously apples and oranges to some degree, it also is not unreasonable to speculate that the lack of a taboo could have some influence on the actual numbers, as we see with the homosexual example above.

If we use this as a guide, it would suggest that the numbers could be higher in a pre taboo world, but of course in no means does it guarantee it.

Unfortunately, I think we are only left with circumstantial pointers like those at this time.

My aim is to try to get more of these suggestive pointers, alongside of what we know about human behaviors to possibly start assigning a probability as to different possibilities.

As an example, I have to assign a probability of 0 to the possibility of it not being a thing at all, simply because we have evidence that it indeed was.

By no means will any of this give us the truth, but it could nudge the storyline as we belive it to be, one way or another at different points in time.

My gut feeling is that is was somewhat more common. But that is just that. A gut feeling. The question becomes what is out there that would support it, what is out there that denies it?

 

[amorousdog5]

I would certainly call this speculation, because that's exactly what it is, however I wouldn't call it "baseless".

If speculation is not supported by any evidence it is baseless, and I believe I have shown that your speculation is not in fact supported by any evidence.

Part of what makes me think is was to some degree, more common if we go back far enough, is the taboo aspect simply had to start somewhere.

Prior to that point in time, obviously no taboo.

It is very difficult to predict or know just how much effect that taboo has on people. Not only that, but how that effect has changed over time.

I contend that it could have come into being the very same moment bestiality itself was first recognized. All it would take is people looking at this new thing and being disgusted by it. As that would be very in line with human nature, to hate that which is different, this is also very much a valid possibility... and one that precludes the possibility that the taboo had any effect on bestiality over time, since it would have then existed at all times bestiality also existed. Now my point is not that this actually happened, but rather that you cannot simply draw conclusions because you want them to be true. We have no evidence as to the existence or strength of the taboo in pre-history, so any speculation is entirely baseless.

 

[K_9River_rat]

If speculation is not supported by any evidence it is baseless, and I believe I have shown that your speculation is not in fact supported by any evidence.


I contend that it could have come into being the very same moment bestiality itself was first recognized. All it would take is people looking at this new thing and being disgusted by it. As that would be very in line with human nature, to hate that which is different, this is also very much a valid possibility... and one that precludes the possibility that the taboo had any effect on bestiality over time, since it would have then existed at all times bestiality also existed. Now my point is not that this actually happened, but rather that you cannot simply draw conclusions because you want them to be true. We have no evidence as to the existence or strength of the taboo in pre-history, so any speculation is entirely baseless.

Then one can equally conclude that whatever story is being told is equally baseless, including your contention.

While your contention that the taboo "could" have come into existence at the very same moment as the act is a possibility simply because it cannot be proved or disproved, the question becomes "how probable" is it to be the case?

To get an idea of that, let's look to other taboo subjects, like the one I've already mentioned concerning homosexuality in ancient civilizations, and ask yourself how did that work.

In other words, was the soon to be called taboo act more or less prevalent before the taboo versus after?

Let's look at various recreational drugs and ask the same question.

Insest, same question.

Over and over, the action precedes the resultant taboo or law.

So we are to believe that the taboo comes in at the same time as you contend when for such a thing to happen would have it go completely against what we know about other things?

It would make more sense if it happened like every other taboo, with the act preceding the taboo.

So sure it "could" have happened like you say, but really, when all things are considered, how probable is it really?

And let's take what you say is very "inline" with human nature.

It would appear from the examples I gave above, that "inline" with human nature would be again to have the act precede the taboo, or are the examples I give somehow exempt from human nature?

So valid possibility, yes, again because it cannot be proven one way or the other. But "probable"?

I have to think not. Especially considering that someone in enough of a position to pass a law about it is not going to find out about something right away.

Also, remember that humans are very lazy by nature. Sitting down to draft a law because some farmer outside your city walls is boning his goat means someone has to get off his ass and do something. We do things because we want to and sometimes because we need to.

In this case, back to probability, I think it more likely that a law was drafted because it was dipping into his fat pockets, which is a trend that continues even today with our own politicians and corporations.

Put in ancient terms, people were dying from rabies after being bitten by rabid dogs, which decreased production, therefore dipping into pockets. I would imagine at some point the population could have gotten up in arms about it and screamed until a law was passed.

I need to locate it again, but I did find sources trying to link the laws and rabies, and will post when I get a chance to locate it again.

Time and time again over recent and ancient history we see where something new and different was seen as accepted or even good, until something happened to change the way in which it was viewed.

Atomic energy and the friendly atom. Then we had 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.

Cocaine in Coca-Cola and other products. We know how that went.

Opiates and Laudanum.

Marijuana.

Alcohol and prohibition.

Good old guns on the table now.

A great example is incest.

How many monarchies practiced it to "preserve their royal bloodline", up until and even after it was proven what inbreeding can lead to?

The way humans react to things of this nature is a base, whether or not you choose to see it as such.

 

[amorousdog5]

Then one can equally conclude that whatever story is being told is equally baseless, including your contention.

That would be my point. Everything you are saying is pointless, baseless speculation. My contention is intended to draw attention to this fact, not to provide a more correct explanation.

To get an idea of that, let's look to other taboo subjects, like the one I've already mentioned concerning homosexuality in ancient civilizations, and ask yourself how did that work.

In other words, was the soon to be called taboo act more or less prevalent before the taboo versus after?

Let's look at various recreational drugs and ask the same question.

Insest, same question.

Over and over, the action precedes the resultant taboo or law.

For incest in particular, the taboo extends back into prehistory and very well could have existed for as long as the concept of incest existed. You may be thinking, "But it was practiced by the Greeks!" It was. And it was also reviled by their culture. This is an attitude epitomized by the tragedy of Oedipus. Almost universally all human cultures have had an incest taboo, including those cultures where rulers practiced incest to preserve their bloodlines. I would say this is the closest match to what we see for bestiality.

Homosexuality certainly has some similarities, but it is very different in that there were actually several cultures that were more accepting of it. I'm going to have to say this is a case of apples and oranges. Drug use is completely unrelated and irrelevant, as the motivations for the taboo are entirely different and in fact based on the very real damage certain drugs had done to the people rather than any innate revulsion people had towards the concept of drug use.

Especially considering that someone in enough of a position to pass a law about it is not going to find out about something right away.

A taboo is not a law. A taboo is a cultural thing, a social custom that prohibits a certain act. Literally all that would have to happen for the taboo to form would be for a tribe of people to be introduced to a concept, and the majority deem it unacceptable behavior. I'll grant that some time may need to pass for that to happen, but not the kind of time you're looking for. It could be done in a matter of days.

Atomic energy and the friendly atom. Then we had 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.

Oh, is there a taboo against atomic energy now? You should tell that to the 92 reactors currently extant on US soil.

Cocaine in Coca-Cola and other products. We know how that went.

Opiates and Laudanum.

Marijuana.

Alcohol and prohibition.

Good old guns on the table now.

These go back to your idea that something bad must have happened to change public opinion towards bestiality, and thereby form a taboo. Unfortunately all these examples are completely irrelevant until you provide at least one piece of evidence that public opinion toward bestiality was ever anything other than negative. In other words for them to make sense as comparisons, you need to prove bestiality is sufficiently similar to these examples by showing that there was at one time a positive general opinion of it.

The way humans react to things of this nature is a base, whether or not you choose to see it as such.

As I have just shown they are irrelevant... it seems your base was in nothing but sand.

 

[K_9River_rat]

For incest in particular, the taboo extends back into prehistory

Proof of this? Or more "baseless"?

Now you're arguing against yourself, since you said written history doesn't go back that far.

Look. I get it. You clearly have your opinions and at this point, all I'm getting from you is a need to show how smart you (think) are.

You point out the number of working reactors in the US. And when was the last one built? How many new ones are planned? Yet our population is growing as is our energy needs, and there's nuclear power. We have the technology, yet we're decommissioning them without building any.

Why? It started with 3 mile island, continued with Chernobyl.

People are now scared of nuclear power.

For as informed as you're trying to come across as, I'm really surprised you didn't know any of this, or make the connection.

If you can't see how something that was once seen as the holy grail of clean, unlimited energy, to now being feared and why, and how that connects to all sorts of things that we once saw as great, but are now feared or outright outlawed, and how that ties into this topic, then you're clearly set in your ways and open to no other opinions but your own.

And pointing this out to you is clearly just a waste of my time.

 

[amorousdog5]

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.

world-nuclear.org

Source showing that there are roughly 60 nuclear power plants under construction world-wide at the moment, including in the USA. You can argue that the public image of nuclear power was harmed by incidents in the past, but very clearly it has not risen to the level of being taboo.

But as you have digressed to an unrelated topic, I take it you wish to withdraw from the conversation. This suits me fine, I only ever wanted to make it clear that your claims were baseless speculation, and I believe I have done that.

 

[K_9River_rat]

I

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.

world-nuclear.org

Source showing that there are roughly 60 nuclear power plants under construction world-wide at the moment, including in the USA. You can argue that the public image of nuclear power was harmed by incidents in the past, but very clearly it has not risen to the level of being taboo.

But as you have digressed to an unrelated topic, I take it you wish to withdraw from the conversation. This suits me fine, I only ever wanted to make it clear that your claims were baseless speculation, and I believe I have done that.

I wouldn't call human nature "baseless". We are unfortunately creatures of habit. Btw, of those approximately 60 plants under construction worldwide, one source lists one in the US, another stated two. Either way, a fairly small number considering our status within the world.

The source listing one, same source as you listed, has that plant starting construction this year. Up until then, new construction on plants in the US has pretty much been at a standstill with not a single new construction project began between 1978 and 2013, whereas there were 51 new reactors under construction in 1979 when the 3 mile island mishap occurred.

I've stated over and over that this was speculation, but again, I will not concede to it being "baseless". If I was trying to say this was absolutely how it was, then that would indeed be baseless.

It's not uncommon to look at how things happen in one situation to get ideas of how they may have happened in a similar situation.

In this case, I've provided many examples where an act or behavior, or even trend preceded a law or different social view in time. There is always a reason for everything, that usually goes beyond what one person wanted.

The knee jerk negative reactions we have to new/different things, usually, but not always, occurs if there's already a negative view of it.

But brand new things, not so much, which is why I brought up nuclear energy. Nearly every operating reactor in the US was constructed before 1979 and the 3 mile island debacle, and like I said, 51 new plants were under construction at that time, then 3 mile island hit, and nuclear power went on the shit list in public opinion overnight, and if you don't believe that, feel free to pull up all the different interviews done on the public regarding nuclear power opinions in light of the 3 mile Island disaster, as well as the news casts. There was a good documentary on it done here a while back. I think it may be on Netflix.

All of the things I listed, I did so to show how public and legal opinions change, while drugs is not bestiality indeed, it is still a behavior.

Everything illegal started out as legal somewhere. And while I know that in itself does not prove anything except that once upon a time, bestiality was certainly legal.

We only need to look to every illegal behavior, habit, action, ect, to see that the act of it going from legal to illegal, or accepted to taboo had an effect on the numbers. Why would bestiality be the only thing that the numbers didn't change in the course of becoming taboo as you are suggesting?

If all of the numbers change in every case of something like this, I'd certainly call that a base on which to speculate. Mind you, I said speculate, not prove.

Many little things when put together can point you in a direction that you wouldn't have had otherwise. That is indeed a base.

And again, none of this proves anything except understanding human behaviors, and the ways and means in which things tend to play out. It's all about probability.

So as you proposed, the idea of bestiality becoming taboo as soon as it appears, is simply less probable when you compare it to nearly everything else, simply because even without getting exact numbers, we as humans tend to start frowning on things AFTER it becomes an issue, and for it to be an issue at all, enough people need to be doing it. Simple as that, and multiple laws (whether religious or otherwise) coming into effect in roughly the same time period in multiple locations certainly at the very least suggests that it was somewhat widespread.

 

[Txcowboy23]

Zoos are made and not born.
I think the most common exposure in a zoo timeline is probably the family dog sniffing or humping a homosapien before or during adolescence.
Everyone has their own beginning.